HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-01-11 17391
MINUTES OF THE 798th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday. January 11, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
798th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi
William LaPine Michael Hale Elaine Koons *
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and
Bill Poppenger, Planner I were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition
is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning
Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the
Commission may. or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. We
will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
* Ms. Koons arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m.
ITEM #1 PETITION 99-11-8-29 DeMattia Associates (Livonia YMCA)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-8-29 by DeMattia
Associates, on behalf of the Livonia YMCA, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the facility located at 14255 Stark Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft and
Lyndon. The Livonia YMCA is requesting approval to construct an addition to
their existing facility. The new addition would be 10,500 sq. ft. in size and
17392
would be located next to the southwest corner of the current building. The new
structure is in reality a free standing building because it is separated from the
main facility by some 10 ft. with connections only from the existing tennis
building and lower gymnasium. The reason for the separation is due to the fact
that if the addition were attached to the existing structure, both sets of walls
would have to be fire rated and a sprinkler system would have to be installed
throughout both buildings. In a letter dated November 5, 1999, submitted with
the plans, the petitioner explains that the addition would house an additional
basketball court and would be constructed in an area that is presently utilized as
a fenced-in outdoor storage and activity area. The letter goes on to further
explain that because this area has limited public exposure no additional
landscaping is planned other than maintaining the existing lawn areas.
Additional parking for the expansion shall be provided by the adjacent school's
(Frost) parking lot to the south. In a second letter dated December 17, 1999, the
petitioner has stated that the agreement for sharing parking with the school is
being finalized by the YMCA administration. A new lighted walkway would be
constructed from the school's parking lot tot he addition's entrance. The main
outside entrance of the proposed addition would be located on the east
elevation.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division dated November 29, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item is a
letter from the Division of Police dated November 29, 1999, and reads as
follows: "I have no concerns or recommendations about the site plan submitted
for the addition to the UMCA." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police
Officer, Traffic Bureau. The third item is a letter from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue, dated December 9, 1999, and reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an
addition to the YMCA facility on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal provided appropriate
separation is provided between the existing building and the new addition." The
letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. We have two letters from
the Inspection Department. The first one is dated December 6, 1999, and reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 16, 1999, the site plan for
the above petition has been reviewed. For your consideration the following is
noted. (1) The shared parking agreement should be submitted to the City in the
form of an appropriate legal instrument. (2) As proposed the addition does not
appear to meet the minimum building separation requirements as identified in
table 705.2 of the 1996 Edition of the B.O.C.A. National Building Guide. (3)
The minimum side yard setback for R-2 districts is six feet. The proposed
entrance canopy appears to encroach into the required setback by three feet. I
trust this has provided the requested information." The second letter is dated
December 17, 1999, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request the revised
17393
site plan A-2 dated 12/15/99 has been reviewed. Relevant to the above subject
petition, the revised plan remedied the building separation and setback
requirements. The only outstanding issue would be the shared parking
agreement. Both letters from the Inspection Department are signed by David
M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Eugene Chun, DeMattia Group, 45501 Helm Street, Plymouth. MI 48170. The only additional
information I might add is the notation on these boards which are shown in
colors, the current design scheme for the project is displayed. The general
theme is not to imitate necessarily the two existing pre-engineering buildings
which are in close proximity to each other, but to have a little bit of inter-play
with the difference in color to set them apart. What I have here are some colors
that are closer to the actual material. It would be the metal siding, which would
be above the concrete masonry unit base. This would be done in a decorative
block and single scored to give essentially a grid pattern with a flat face. This
would be the color selected for that. We have a lighter band on the bottom and
a darker band on the top as opposed to the lighter siding that currently exists
with a darker band.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from Commissioners?
`�- Mr. Shane: At the study meeting you mentioned that you were recommending that the
existing building be painted a color compatible with what you are proposing. Is
that part of this plan now?
Mr. Chun: This is not officially a part of this construction plan. The existing building is a
painted block, as well. In anticipation of the requirement for painting at some
date within the next five years, the recommendation would be to consider a
color that might be in keeping with this. However, these colors are selected so
that they would be compatible with the existing colors. This is currently less of
a gray, which my preference would be to go more to a gray in this family, it is
more of a dark brown at this point. But we have this combination of the siding
which is more of a warm gray almost leaning towards a green and this brown.
These four existing colors, there is a slight difference here that we tried to
render with these markers. This slight difference would certainly be acceptable.
It is just that in the future or if in the near future, with the maintenance program
we are going to repaint this wall, that is where I think the recommendation to go
closer to one of these might be considered.
Mr. Piercecchi: The building that we were just referring to, isn't that sort of a blue green paint
on that building? On the lower end.
Mr. Chun: No. It is currently a dark brown.
ti..
Mr. Piercecchi: Where is the blue?
17394
Mr. Chun: I think it is around the front. I don't recall the blue offhand. There are a
number of materials on the entire complex. There is brick. There are a number
of decorative masonry units but in this particular elevation I am absolutely
certain, because I have studied it, that this is almost like a dark reddish brown.
Mr. Piercecchi Is that complimentary to the other colors?
Mr. Chun: Yes sir. These are in the warm family and our particular preference from a
design standpoint is to maybe give this a little bit more of a dramatic look.
Mr. Piercecchi: This blue color I mention, I observed this from the parking lot.
Mr. Chun: From the YMCA parking lot?
Mr. Piercecchi: No, from the school's parking lot.
Mr. Churn: From the school parking lot?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. I thought it looked really out of place.
Lori Uranga, I am with the YMCA. My home address is 8315 Wildwood Lane, Ann Arbor.
The blue that you are discussing is on the block wall of the existing tennis court
and it was painted by our day camp program. That wall will be behind the new
building.
Nuy
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems that the only issue left outstanding according to Mark Taormina was
the shared agreement. Has that been finalized?
Ms. Uranga: I have a copy of the memorandum of agreement right now. We have one issue
remaining with the school district which is a light pole in the parking lot and we
have a meeting with David Watson on Friday to finalize that. We are meeting
at 1:30.
Mr. Piercecchi: The Council will assist on that and give their final stamp of approval. Thank
you.
Mr. Alanskas: I thought at this study meeting that you had said that that building was going to
be painted at the time you did this new construction on the new building, not
five years down the road. I know you said you painted the building every five
years but I thought it was stated that you were going to paint it now to coincide
with the new building. Tonight you are saying you may paint it three or four
years down the road.
Ms. Uranga: I can address that. What we have currently is we have a bid estimate that we are
carrying and if we go out to bid, if there is some additional savings, we will then
have the block painted. We have a limited budget. It comes from United Way
... and our capital campaign for this project and we are trying to maintain, if we go
out for bids and there is additional savings then one of the objects is to paint that
block wall.
17395
Mr. Alanskas: Is it true that you do paint the part that has to be painted every year for
maintenance purposes or is it longer?
Noir-
Ms. Uranga: I unfortunately cannot answer that.
Mr. Chun: I think five years is approximately correct.
Mr. Alanskas: What kind of paint do you use? Is it latex or an enamel?
Mr. Chun: These days, it would probably be a latex.
Mr. Alanskas: Within five years, if it needs a touch up, you would take care of the maintenance
and touch it up?
Ms. Uranga: We are going to be implementing a preventive maintenance program for all of
our facilities. We have a new department being developed and that definitely
would be part of our program.
Mr. Alanskas: I would hope it would fit in your budget to paint it now and to make the
building look like all one piece. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Ms. Uganda, if it isn't painted at the time of the new construction, we have no
control after we get through with this and Council, so we are hoping that we can
r.. count on you and that when it is painted it will match the colors and that
somebody doesn't take an idea to paint it some other color. Can we agree on
that?
Ms. Uranga: We can agree on that.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was
#01-01-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-11-8-29 by DeMattia Associates, on behalf of
the Livonia YMCA, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition
to the facility located at 14255 Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by DeMattia Associates dated
12/15/99, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
17396
3) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet A-3 prepared by
DeMattia Associates dated 12/15/99, as revised, is hereby approved and
New
shall be adhered to;
4) That all approvals are based on the petitioner providing the City of Livonia
with an agreement for shared parking between the YMCA and Frost School;
5) That the parking area designated in the agreement shall be resealed and
double striped;
6) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Koons
ABSTAIN: McCann
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 99-11-08-30 Medora Building Co. (Commercial Lawnmower)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-08-30 by Medora
Building Company, on behalf of Commercial Lawnmower, requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to renovate the exterior elevations of the commercial building
located at 32098 Plymouth Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and
Hubbard. The existing building on this site was most recently occupied by the
House of Maple Furniture Store. Immediately west of the property is the
Tenpenny Furniture Store and further west of that is the Bill Brown Auto
Dealership and to the east is the Fonte D' Amore Restaurant. The petitioner is
requesting approval to renovate the exterior building elevations of the existing
building on the site. The reason for the request is so Commercial Lawnmower
can move its business from its present location, which is near the southwest
corner of Wayne Road and Plymouth Road. As part of this proposal, the
petitioner would be demolishing a 30 ft. x 115 ft. section off the southeast
corner of the building. This area would be replaced with parking spaces and the
new facade would become the main entrance into the store. A note on the Site
Plan states the parking lot to the rear of the building would be restriped. The
elevation plan shows that the south elevation(facing Plymouth Road) would
have the existing entrance replaced by a new brick facade and windows.
Running along the top of this elevation would be a 5 ft. band of dryvit. The east
17397
elevation(facing the restaurant), where the portion of the existing building is to
be torn down, would be similar in appearance to the south elevation. The
'410e. facade would have the new main entrance incorporated into it and would be
completed with a combination of bricks and windows. The 5 ft. band of dryvit
would also run along the top of this section. A dryvit structural canopy would
extend out and protect the new main entrance. The remaining masonry block
walls of the rest of the building would only be painted.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first is a letter from the
Engineering Department, dated November 29, 1999, and reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item is a
letter from the Division of Police, dated November 29, 1999, and reads as
follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no
objection to the site plan as submitted. I am recommending that the site plan
include a sign for each handicap parking space; as required in the Michigan
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The letter is signed by John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The third item is a letter from the
Inspection Department, dated December 6, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of November 16, 1999, the site plan for the above
�.. subject petition has been reviewed. Providing that the parking areas are double
striped, the Inspection Department would have no objection to the above
proposal." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox. The fourth item is a
letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated December 16, 1999, which reads
as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
a request to renovate the exterior elevations of the commercial building on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Murphy, Commercial Lawnmower, 32098 Plymouth Road, Livonia. I am willing to
answer any questions you may have. My builder was suppose to be here with a
color site plan and I am unable to reach him right now.
Mr. McCann: We can either wait for him to get here or we can go forward, if you are ready.
Mr. Murphy: I am ready.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us anything additional that we haven't heard so far? Are
you moving your store and why you are doing it and what is it all about?
Mr. Murphy: Basically, we have been in business in Livonia for 21 years and have started our
22nd year. We have learned a lot over those 21 years. For example, where we
17398
are located on Plymouth and Wayne Roads, it is extremely difficult for people
turning left into there. Feed back from customers, especially elderly customers,
,ur- at 3:30 in the afternoon when the plant lets out, it is extremely difficult to get
out of there. I have been renting for the last year and a half from the back of
House of Maple and Pine, assembling equipment. I also have a couple of other
warehouses around the city. When I met with the owner and we discussed
buying the building, it will allow me to move out of the other warehouses I am
renting. It will allow us to make a lot better presentation to the customers. It
moves us to a better location for entry and exit. It allows us to basically
quadruple our sales floor, our parts department and our service department
which will allow us to become more efficient. The site was an eyesore to the
city and I think our plans and what we hope to do will make it a nice looking
location.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Murphy, how many employees do you have at your present location?
Mr. Murphy: Fourteen.
Mr. Alanskas: How many will you have at your new larger location?
Mr. Murphy: Actually, the increase may only be about one or two employees, possibly a
couple more part time people. We are not planning on adding a lot of people.
Mr. Alanskas: What are the plans for the building you are leaving? Is it going to be left
vacant or do you have someone going in there?
Mr. Murphy: The owner of that building is George Laforest and he is here tonight but I can
speak for him. He has a couple prospective tenants right now. What he is
doing is having his property surveyed. His goal is that the new tenant will move
into there as soon as we move out.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the rental company going to be taking a portion of the old building?
Mr. Murphy: That is in discussion right now. It really depends on the tenant that moves in
there. The rental business is growing. If anything, it would be taking part of the
back of that building, part of the service part.
Mr. Alanskas: When I saw you Monday, I said that we appreciate the fact that you are going to
go from 0% to 3% landscaping. Could you boost that up to about 10%?
Mr. Murphy: When I went before the PRDA I talked to JoAnn Marshall who is the project
landscape architect. I asked her if I could be in communication with her so that
our landscaping doesn't contrast. We want it to blend with what the City is
trying to do. When I had my landscape plan drawn up, we basically used the
space that was available because there isn't a lot of space for landscaping. I am
open if you have suggestions. Landscaping is something that we could handle
fairly easily.
17399
Mr. Alanskas: A lot of stores will put these huge ceramic pots with flowers in there. In other
words, it wouldn't have to be in the ground. It could be sitting on concrete.
Mr. Murphy: On the east side of the building that wouldn't be a problem. We could probably
put one on each end. On the west side, that is a one lane drive coming out of
there.
Mr. Alanskas: Anything that you could do we would appreciate. I think what you are doing is
a nice plan. It is going to make that side of Plymouth Road look very nice. I
am glad too that now you will not be putting any of your vehicles out for
display. It will all be inside, correct?
Mr. Murphy: Correct, with windows all the way across Plymouth Road. We have a riser
inside the building and with the building being closer to Plymouth Road, we are
excited about having a nice display inside and changing it with the seasons.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine: On your floor plan, you show commercial sales and retail sales. It looks like
you have a separate entrance for commercial sales and a separate door for retail
sales. Is that the way it operates?
Mr. Murphy: No sir. The doors that are on the west side of the building, those will be strictly
*Nur for emergency exits. All the entrance will come in off the east side. The reason
we have it divided residential up front and commercial in the back is because 22
years ago when we named the business Commercial Lawnmower, some people
thought that we didn't sell residential equipment.
Mr. LaPine: Do you do repairs at this location?
Mr. Murphy: Yes we do. The total north end of the building will be our service facility.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Hale: There won't be any outdoor storage of anything at all, is that correct?
Mr. Murphy: No. I think the question Bob was asking is in front of our current store, in the
mornings, we pull lawnmowers out in front and in the evening we pull them
back in. There will be none of that. The way it is set up right now there will be
no outdoor storage at all.
Mr. Hale: You are planning on increasing the retail aspects of the business or the sale of
products?
Mr. Murphy: We are not planning on taking on any more lines, but we are hoping by having a
better presentation to the consumer and a better location so our business can
grow.
17400
Mr. Hale: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: We all appreciate your efforts to increase the landscaping in that area because
as you know the PRDA is really spending a lot of time and money in that
particular area and has placed two trees in front of that property, isn't that
correct?
Mr. Murphy: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Perhaps increasing that 3% on the site. Let's look at it from a different
perspective. What is the distance between the two curb cuts on your from the
western to the eastern boundary? The west would be where the two trees are.
Mr. Murphy: The property is about 120 feet wide.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have two trees there. I refer you to what Bill Brown Ford had. In between
that long curb cut that they had, they scalped out an area probably 6' to 8' deep
and maybe 50' to 60' wide and they planted flowers there in the summer time
and I think it added quite a nice touch to their site. Would you consider doing
something like that?
Mr. Murphy: Absolutely. I think Bill Brown's look great when those flowers bloom. We
want people to take notice of our building.
Noew Mr. Piercecchi: That is your business, isn't it?
Mr. Murphy: Absolutely.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would think that more landscaping could be an asset to your business.
Mr. Murphy: We have a great customer base of landscapers so that wouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Piercecchi: I understood in the beginning that you do not own your current site.
Mr. Murphy: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I was wondering about that pylon sign. It would be nice to get it out of there if
you did own it. But you will look into the possibility of maybe, not exactly a
duplicate of Bill Brown, but something in front to add a little bit more
landscaping, maybe a percent or two more?
Mr. Murphy: That was one of the first things I wanted to do when I bought this building. I
thought the sign was rather ugly so we tore it down.
Mr. Shane: There are five parking spaces along the side of your building closest to
Plymouth Road.
r..
Mr. Murphy: On the east side of the building?
17401
Mr. Shane: Yes. Would you have a problem with losing one of those parking spaces?
Mr. Murphy: Not at all. You are talking about the closest ones to Plymouth Road running
parallel there?
Mr. Shane: Right. The specific one I am talking about is the closest one to the sidewalk.
Mr. Murphy: No. That wouldn't be an issue.
Mr. Shane: That way you have a little bit more landscaping You could put the flowers that
Dan talked about or some other plant material.
Mr. Murphy: I think what you are talking about is basically right on the property line between
ourselves and Fonte D'Amore?
Mr. Shane: Right.
Mr. Murphy: I don't have a problem with that as long as there is no problem with Fonte
D'Amore. You are talking about building a planter there and put some flowers
in?
Mr. Shane: This space right here.
Mr. Murphy: Oh, I know what you mean. Our plan is to bring out, right along here, an
N'"' island and have landscaping there. It doesn't show on the plan.
Mr. McCann: If there is nothing further, I am going to go the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-02-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-11-8-30 by Medora Building Company, on
behalf of Commercial Lawnmower, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior elevations of the commercial building located at 32098
Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet SD-1 prepared by GAV Associates dated
11/08/99, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan marked Sheet SD-1 prepared by GAV Associates
dated 11/05/99, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
r•- 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
17402
4) That all underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
r.• the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by
GAV Associates dated 11/08/99, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exceptions;
7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure
gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times;
8) That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped to
the satisfaction of the Inspection Department;
9) That no outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be
permitted at any time on this site;
10) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and
`ar approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 99-11-SN-12 Millennium Park, L.L.C. (Home Depot)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-SN-12 by
Millennium Park, L.L.C., on behalf of Home Depot, requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt and
Inkster. The applicant is requesting approval for four (4) wall signs for the
Home Depot store that is part of the Millennium Park development. This
building is presently under construction. All four signs would be internally
illuminated. Because the proposed signage is in excess of the number of signs
allowed by the sign ordinance, the applicant first had to be granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning
Commission. A variance (case #9908-103) was granted at the Board's
September 21, 1999, Regular Meeting.
`' Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17403
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated November 30, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of November 16, 1999, the sign package for the above subject site
has been reviewed. As proposed, the sign package conforms to the variance
(Appeal Case #9908-103) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
Department would have no objection to the above proposal." The letter is
signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, T. Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Suite 3300, Bloomfield Hills, Mi
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Mr. Drane: No, but I thought if I could take this time to show you the Meijer sign and the
monument sign so you could see the entire sign package together it might make
a little easier.
Mr. McCann: Let's just deal with this one first and then we will move on.
Mr. Drane: Sure.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, when this proposal first came to us I believe it was said this was going to
be your retail Home Depot and that the one on Inkster Road was going to be for
commercial. Am I right in that assumption?
Mr. Drane: I don't know if that is exactly correct. We have a representative here from
Home Depot. I think they are both going to be retail outlets. I think the other
one is going to be more directed
Mr. Alanskas: With your signage, how are you going to identify which one is which if it
doesn't say wholesale or retail?
Mr. Drane: Because this one is brighter and shinier and everyone is going to know that this
is the one that is
Mr. Alanskas: So either way, they can go to either building?
Mr. Drane: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Since your signage meets our specs, I really have no objection to your
proposal; however, I would like to know why you want all this additional
signage compared to the Northville store which really has just a "Home Depot"
17404
and a "nursery" sign which totals 300 sq. ft. This one here is almost 500 sq. ft.?
Why do you feel the other signs are necessary?
Num.
Mr. Drane: One of the underlying design concepts here was to create a village or a building
that looks like multiple buildings. Number one, we thought by having these
elements on the building, they come into proportion and usefulness by having a
sign there. That is just a design and aesthetic point of view. The other thing
that we discussed at the Zoning Board of Appeals, unlike this building which is
1400 feet away from Middlebelt and behind a Costco building and I think
encumbered by sight lines through everything that is going on on the site, we
thought additional signage was appropriate and that was what the Zoning Board
of Appeals granted their variance based on.
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought at the onset that perhaps it was because of different functions within
that building you wanted to highlight that.
Mr. Drane: Right. The other function too is that there is a tool-rental, lumber yard and a
nursery. This is a multi-functional building.
Mr. Piercecchi: This building is obviously quite a bit larger than the one in Northville.
Mr. Drane: Mike Clingel from Greenberg Farrell Architects is a Home Depot
representative, I think he can probably answer the question.
r,,, Mr. Piercecchi: It looks larger anyway when I went by and looked at it.
Mr. Drane: I went by there today and I think this one is longer but I think the other one is
deeper. I think just to fit the site better.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-03-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-11-SN-12 by Millennium Park, L.L.C., on
behalf of Home Depot, requesting approval for signage for the commercial
building located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 to
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Millennium Park, L.L.C., as received by
the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour
after this business closes;
17405
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 99-11-SN-13 Meijer, Inc.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-SN-13 by Meijer,
Inc. requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at
13000 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt and
Inkster. The applicant is requesting approval for five (5) wall signs for the
Meijer Store that is part of the Millennium Park development. This building is
presently under construction. All five signs would be internally illuminated.
Because the proposed signage is in excess of the number of signs allowed by the
sign ordinance and one of the signs would be roof mounted, the applicant first
had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being
presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case #9908-102) was
granted at the Board's September 21, 1999 Regular Meeting.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated
November 30, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
November 16, 1999, the sign package for the above subject site has been
reviewed. The proposed signage conforms with the variance granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals (Appeal Case #9908-102) with the exception of the
two drive thru pharmacy signs. The drive thru pharmacy signs were not
identified on sheet 2 as part of this proposal. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. Thank you.
Mark Drane, T. Rogvoy Associates, 6735 Telegraph, Suite 3300, Bloomfield Hills, Mi.
Again, we came before you with the village scheme. The idea is that we have a
multi-functional building. Additional signage would be required for the garden
center, pharmacy and the grocery store. The building design reflects what is
inside and for those reasons we ask for your recommendation.
Mrs. Koons: Is this the same as every other Meijer, 24 hours a day, 360 plus days a year?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Unless it is the year 2003 and one less?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
17406
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the size of the Meijer sign on Eight Mile? How many sq. ft.? Where it
says just "Meijer's".
Mr. Drane: I don't think I can answer that question. I have some representatives from
Meijer's.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the size of the letter of Meijer for the 418 sq. ft.?
Mr. Drane: It is a seven foot high letter.
Mr. Alanskas: Could that be reduced to five feet? Let me know why because a few years ago
Service Merchandise came before us at the mall and they wanted a sign of that
height and we said you are going to see it whether it is five or four feet. You
are asking for seven feet, I really don't have any problem with the sign. It looks
very nice but I can't see why it has to be seven feet tall.
Mr. Drane: Again, this sign is 1600 ft. from Middlebelt Road and I think the design concept
proportion wise that that size sign on the roof lends itself to bigger letters.
Mr. Alanskas: But you are also going to have signs on Schoolcraft and Middlebelt saying
Meijer so people pulling into that area would know that Meijer's is there so why
do we need a sign that large on that building, is my question to you?
Mr. Drane: My answer is that I believe it will be easier seen from Middlebelt Road and I
think proportionately it fits better on the building.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: What is the height of that area that the sign is going to sit on? You said the sign
is seven feet high. Just the portion where the sign is going to be.
Mr. Drane: How high that is above grade?
Mr. LaPine: No. From the top to the dryvit portion.
Mr. Drane: I am going to say that is 25 feet.
Michael Hossfern, 1050 Wilshire Drive, Troy, Michigan. The actual main height of the
building shell is 24 feet and from there you can see the gable roof starts off and
it has a vertical height of 14 feet so if the sign is about seven feet you have
about 3.5 feet or so before the sign starts and the same amount of clearance
above it.
Mr. LaPine: So the sign is about half the width of that panel?
Mr. Hossfern: Yes. That is correct.
17407
Mr. McCann: Just to clarify, the "j", the "j" looks like it is a foot above and a foot below the
other letters. The "M" is seven feet and the "j" is probably nine feet high?
Mr. Hossfern: Approximately, yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go
to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: Again, since the footage meets the City's specifications, I have no problem with
it. therefore I will offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved, it was
#01-04-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-11-SN-13 by Meijer, Inc. requesting approval
for signage for the commercial building located at 13000 Middlebelt Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Millennium Park, L.L.C., as received by
the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour
after this business closes;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I really see nothing wrong with the sign package and the look of it but I will be
voting no on it because I think seven feet for that one sign for Meijer's is way too
large and I just don't think it is necessary. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Anything else? Hearing from no one, will the secretary please call the roll.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #5 PETITION 99-11-SN-14 Millennium Park, L.L.C.
17408
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-SN-14 by
Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval for signage for the commercial
development located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt and
Inkster. The applicant is requesting approval for two (2) business center signs
and one (1) directional sign for the Millennium Park development. Parts of this
development are presently under construction. All three signs would be
internally illuminated. Because the proposed signage is in excess of sign area
and height allowed by the sign ordinance and tenants are identified on all three
signs the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case
#9908-105) was granted at the Board's September 21, 1999, Regular Meeting.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Inspection
Department dated December 2, 1999, and reads as follows: "Per your request of
November 19, 1999, the sign package for the above subject site has been
reviewed. As proposed, this sign package conforms with the variance (Appeal
Case #9908-105) granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department
would have no objection to the above proposal." The letter is signed by David
M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, T. Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. I trust
you all got the rendering. The design concept is intended to be an overall
design concept however the intent wasn't to try to stick a sign out in the middle
to draw attention to itself Each entrance we painstakingly designed to create a
theme or field of this site because these buildings are 1500 feet away from
Middlebelt Road and 1800 feet from Schoolcraft Road. We thought it necessary
to identify the tenants within the site because they are so far away from the
road. We thought we had done it in a uniform manner. One pylon or
monument sign for each entrance accompanied by the low brick garden walls
with the limestone caps and finials and the monuments with the copper tops and
spires. You will notice that it has been designed in a manner where we have
lapping landscaping behind the ornamental trees, evergreen trees and canopy
trees to try to provide a layering effect in the background for the entrance. You
will notice that the center boulevard there is a low brick wall with a flag pole.
Pedestrian lighting, brick payers around the monoliths. They are set back such
that we feel that we are not taking anymore advantage of signage than anybody
else in the district. I think the rendering will help you out with that concept.
Mr. McCann: Would you mind putting the rendering up?
Mr. Drane: Sure.
17409
Mr. McCann: I normally don't take advantage position as chair and go first but when I see the
rendering come across, this looks like we are going into a state park, not into a
shopping mall. When I look at the towers which are 20 some feet tall, the trees
in the background are some 60 feet tall. We are not going to be planting trees
that are 60 feet tall, are we?
Mr. Drane: No. This is not a rendering of installed product but there are berms back there
so they will be taller and some of these trees are 12 feet high, planted height.
Mr. McCann: Twelve feet, so we will be looking at the height of the bushes in the picture, not
the height of the trees is what we are going to get.
Mr. Drane: Like I said, this is not a planting height rendering.
Mr. McCann: But this is what you are bringing to us so we want to know what the truth is and
what we are really going to get.
Mr. Drane: O.K.
Mr. McCann: When I look at this it looks beautiful. It's a five lane road there, actually it is
about six or seven lanes in that area. On Middlebelt, the trees will never get this
high, even in 10 years, the tenants are never going to let you let the trees grow
to this height to where you can't see the mall and you can't see the Meijer's and
you can't see the stores back there. It is part of the business being able to see
that there is a mall back there. I guess where I am going with this is the need
for the height of the tenant sign being 18 feet. We know the trees aren't going to
be that high. Do the tenants signs need to be that high? You've got 18'9" is
required for your tenant sign there. What is the purpose of going that high?
Mr. Drane: To get the tenant panels on them, on the signs so that they can be read.
Mr. McCann: What tenants? Is there a contract for any of tenants to be on the sign?
Mr. Drane: There is a contract for Home Depot and Meijer's to be on the sign and
Millennium Park to be on the sign.
Mr. McCann: When you signed that contract you knew that you were not a regional mall,
didn't you?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: So you knew you were not allowed to have their signs?
Mr. Drane: We knew upfront and I believe that the site plan approval package states that no
signage shall be approved as part of that package.
Mr. McCann: So your tenants knew that they might not get a sign out front?
Mr. Drane: Correct.
17410
Mr. McCann: How wide are the tenant's signs? I think they're three feet. Is that the correct
N,„ size of the panel for Meijer and for Home Depot?
Mr. Drane: The sign is 10 feet wide. Proportionately; however, the letters space out. It is a
function of how high the panel is and the proportion of the letter, so I am going
to guess that the larger sign will have, let's say Tom's Linens Emporium, which
is a long sign. It would have an eight inch high letter or a 10 inch high letter
which would take up eight feet on the sign panel, so they could be up to eight
feet long.
Mr. McCann: But what about the height of the panel?
Mr. Drane: The height...
Mr. McCann: Will each panel be two feet or three feet high?
Mr. Drane: The top panel is 2'-2", the Meijer panel is 3'-2", and the Home Depot panel is 2'-
6". The range is anywhere from 1'-8" to 1'-10" high.
Mr. McCann: How did we come up with that?
Mr. Drane: What we thought would be appropriate would be the height of the letter versus
the area of the sign, we didn't want to jam the letters on the sign and make it
1.. look crowded. We wanted to make sure there was space between the letters,
between each tenant sign so it didn't all read together.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Meijer's is the widest. Why is that? It is the shortest name.
Mr. Drane: Because it is the tallest letter. You will notice that the Meijer sign is the top
billing, and Home Depot is the top billing at the other location. You will see the
differences in the signs. There are different size letters.
Mr. McCann: How far back is this off of Middlebelt Road?
Mr. Drane: It is 20 feet from the property line.
Mr. McCann: You've got letters that are approximately 3' for Meijer.
Mr. Drane: The "M" is going to about 24" high.
Mr. McCann: The "j" is going to be 36" and you are 20 feet from the main road. Is that
absolutely necessary?
Mr. Drane: In my opinion, the way the traffic is and the way Middlebelt Road dips down,
and because there are seven lanes out there and the rate of speed, yes.
Mr. McCann: Are people going to break their necks trying to look up 18 feet to see it in the
air.
17411
Mr. Drane: No. I am looking up at a ceiling that is 20 feet high and I am not breaking my
N` neck. I think it is a line of sight issue.
Mr. McCann: It is also a convenience for reading. You are not suppose to be taking your eyes
off the road when they are driving.
Mr. Drane: We also want people to read the sign before they make the left hand turn or the
right hand turn.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the other Commissioners? Are there any questions?
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Drane, why six panels? What drove that decision?
Mr. Drane: Because we thought we would have four major tenants back between Meijer's
and Home Depot that would require signs. Those are the tenants that are the
furthest back from the road and because they have the smallest buildings, they
have the smallest wall signs.
Mrs. Koons: I'll save my comments for later. That's all the questions I have. Thanks.
Mr. LaPine: At our study session I mentioned that I didn't remember, is this the drawing of
what you told me we got in our original package?
Mr. Drane: No. That is it right there. I brought that because we had discussed that.
Mr. LaPine: Show me where the pylon sign shows all these stores on it.
Mr. Drane: On that one it doesn't. On the packet on the cover sheet of the site plan...
Mr. LaPine: I was under the impression that the only signs we were going to have out here
on Middlebelt and Schoolcraft was Millennium Park. That is what we are
selling here, Millennium Park. We're not selling Meijer's and all the other
stores. They are getting their signage inside the shopping center. As it is now,
the Millennium Park sign is the smallest. It is smaller than the Meijer's and the
Home Depot. To me the largest sign should be Millennium Park, that is what
you are selling. Your advertising should say Millennium Park located at the
former Livonia racecourse. I think you are asking for way too much signage. I
am willing to go a little over the ordinance, but you guys are asking, in my
opinion, for more than I really think you need at that location. I have other
questions, but I'll let some of the other Commissioners speak.
Mr. Piercecchi: Bill said some of the things I was going to say and I want to repeat a couple of
things that may or may not have been mentioned. Tenant signs on business
center signs have never been approved. You are asking for a tenant sign on a
business sign and that has never been allowed, to my knowledge, within the
`'"' City. You are asking us to approve something we have never had and set a
precedent that may or may not be bad for the City. Do you realize that you are
asking for 118 square feet of sign area for each business sign on Schoolcraft
17412
Road in excess of, the sign permit is 40 sq. ft., you are asking for 158 sq. ft.
Like Bill said, that is going way overboard and that is on both of those signs.
The sign height is 10 feet. Here you've got an extra 10'10".
Mr. Drane: Keep in mind too, that we're considered a regional center, and regional centers
Mr. Piercecchi: But as a regional center, like Mr. McCann said, you are in an altogether
different ball game here. Do you want to go as a regional center? That was
brought up in study by our Chairman.
Mr. Drane: That was in reference to the height of the sign. The height of the sign in a
regional center is 20 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't see how you can justify putting 10' high signs out there. Are you telling
us that people aren't going to know that there is a Meijer's or Home Depot in
there?
Scott Nowakowski, Real Estate Manager with Meijer, Inc. My response is strictly from a
selfish standpoint. It is imperative to our Meijer customers that they are able to
see when the entrance to our development is coming up and if you are traveling
up and down these thoroughfares going 50 to 60 miles an hour, and if you are a
mom with kids in the car, that is why it is important to us to have that signage
identifying those locations.
Mr. Piercecchi: What other complexes have such a thing as that?
Mr. Nowakowski: Actually, we don't have anything this nice at our other stores. Our other
stores have 20 foot pylon signs which identify this is a Meijer and this is the
entrance to the facility.
Mr. Piercecchi: They have a 20 sq. ft. sign?
Mr. Nowakowski: No, I'm sorry. I was talking about the height.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the square footage?
Mr. Nowakowski: The square footage is much larger than that.
Mr. Piercecchi: It isn't a 158 sq. ft.?
Mr. Nowakowski: We have signs that are 200 sq. ft.
Mr. Piercecchi: But that's on the building.
Mr. Nowakowski: No. This is on the road.
Mr. Piercecchi: Where is that? In Michigan?
17413
Mr. Nowakowski: I'll be happy to go back to my records and send you locations on where you
can see those signs.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did you go in there as a regional complex?
Mr. Nowakowski: I don't know how we approached the municipality.
Mr. Piercecchi: Jim, did you go over the regional with the people so they can understand what
I am talking about?
Mr. McCann: If this were a regional center, they would be allowed a 20 foot high sign. You
are allowed to put your individual stores on it; however, you are not allowed to
have any signage on the building itself. In this case, you want both: a 20 foot
sign and you want, I forget what your particular signage on the your building
was, somewhere around 473 sq. ft., in addition to putting this out on the main
road. According to the City Ordinance you are not allowed to do that. That is
what Mr. Piercecchi was referring to. The issue again, is not what you are
doing in other communities but what you are doing within this community and
what this project was suppose to be. I would assume you would take a look at
the plans for the project before you would become a tenant there and invest as
much money as you have. What we are trying to determine is whether or not
this road is lower, as he says. The sign would be 19 feet above the ground, so it
would be 20 feet above the people. You say people are driving 50 to 60 miles
an hour? I hope not. I think the speed limit right there is 45 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h.
They don't need to be driving that fast and you are putting it outside of their
sight line. If you are trying to get advertising dollars from it, that is one thing.
If you are looking for a directional sign, you need to have it down low where the
turn is. You don't need a 3-1/2 foot letter to get a directional that says "hey, this
is our entrance." That is where we are coming from and if you would like to
respond to that, that is what we are interested in hearing.
Mr. Nowakowski: The point I am trying to make is that from a distance, certainly from a height
perspective, it is important that the sign is up high enough so that our customers
can see it in the distance and anticipate that they need to get over the three lanes
and get into the right hand lane in order to make that turn.
Mr. McCann: In Northville, you have a monument sign, four feet off the ground, not 20 feet.
Mr.Nowakowski: I agree, that is what we have. I am just telling you what our preferences are.
We wouldn't have had a monument sign there unless it was mandatory.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, the reason why I am confused is because of the fact that you want to have
six signs there showing six different businesses. In that park, you are going to
have many, many more businesses than six people and you are saying it is very
important that your customer's name is on the mall so that people will know to
go in there. In regards to, for example Building "I" where you may have
between 4 and 10 tenants and they may be restaurants, they have to be seen too,
17414
but they are not going to be on these signs. So how do you choose who you are
going to put on these signs?
r..
Mr. Nowakowski: The criteria was who is going to draw the most traffic.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going by the size of the building and who is going to draw the most
traffic and let the rest of them suffer?
Mr. Nowakowski: No, I think there is a C[Nergy about shopping centers that when people go
to certain tenants, the other tenants benefit.
Mr. Alanskas: How are the other tenants not going to suffer if no one knows who is in there,
The smaller tenants or a restaurant? If they don't have a sign there, they can't be
seen.
Mr. Nowakowski: People who drive into the center because they see the Linens and Things
sign....
Mr. Alanskas: Can't they be seen when they drive into these six businesses also with the big
building of seven foot letters? Can't they see that?
Mr. Nowakowski: Sure they can.
Mr. Alanskas: Then why do you need it out there then? No answer?
y..
Mr. Nowakowski: I have an answer, but nobody has heard me so far. The building sign is 1500
feet away from the road. That is my answer.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Drane, I as one Commissioner, probably am not ready to vote on this. But I
want to be able to tell you, from my point of view, that the things I have trouble
with, because I think it is important. I think your entranceways have potential
for elegance. I know that they won't look like this when you come to us but
believe me we are going to hold you to some of these landscape plans. I think
there is potential for elegance but I think this sign is way too busy. I don't think
it fits. I don't think we need six panels from my point of view. I am one of
those moms, have been one of those moms that drive past an entrance and have
to figure a way to turn back around and my kids duck down because they are
embarrassed because we are doing that. So I don't even mind as one
Commissioner, some kind of marking that it is Meijer or it is Home Depot. The
height is bothersome to me and the "busyness" of the sign is bothersome to me.
I think the sign is way too busy for the type of entrance,just to give you my
opinion. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I have a question for the gentleman from Meijer's. You brought up a valid
r•- point, people driving down there they have to know where to get over and
where to turn I guess my argument back to you is, how much repeat business,
how many people use Meijer's on a regular basis of your total business?
17415
Mr. Nowakowski: I can't give you a statistic.
vair
Mr. LaPine: I would have to say it is probably 60% to 70%. So once a person finds this
location, I go to a lot of different shopping centers, I am a salesman, so I go to a
lot of different areas. I get lost sometimes but once I find the place the first
time, I always know how to get back there. The same thing is going to happen
there. Once the people get into this shopping center and start using it, they will
always know how to get back in so why do we need a big sign? You can say
well we need a big sign for the other 30 or 40% who are going to only come
once in a while, but no matter how you do it, once they get to the shopping
center and they come back on a regular basis, they are going to know where to
go and then we are struck with this big sign forever. Maybe you need the big
sign for a year because by that time the number of people that are going to use
that center will know where it is at and then it could go away but for us to have
a big sign forever just because people have to know ahead of time where to get
in. They are going to know where to pull over and get in once they go to that
shopping center one time. If they don't, they shouldn't be driving.
Mr. Nowakowski: I disagree with you. It would be wonderful if everybody was in a very clear
state of mind and when they are driving to the store they weren't distracted by
many things. But the fact is that that sign needs to be a constant reminder that
this is the entrance you have to pull into.
1411111' Mr. LaPine: Well, then you and I have a great disagreement on that because if their mind
isn't on what they are doing, they shouldn't be driving a car on the road, in my
opinion.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I am going to go to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I will make a motion to table this petition and have the petitioner look over the
situation and determine what type of area they want to be in this center, or
otherwise and perhaps, they can scale back some of these areas. Perhaps in
their wisdom they can see that the tenant panels on the business sign really
aren't necessary because the people will know there is a Meijer's in there and
that there is a Home Depot in there. People are brighter than I think they give
them credit for.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-05-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 99-
11-SN-14 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval for signage for the
commercial development located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 25 to February 1, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will be tabled to the study meeting of February 1, 2000. This concludes the
17416
Miscellaneous Site Plans portion of our agenda. We will now begin the
Pending Items portion of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight.
Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
ITEM #6 PETITION 99-10-01-16 City Planning Commission (Fire Station #3)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-01-16 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution
#673-99 proposing to rezone certain property located on the west side of
Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No. 3 site
and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4 from
PL and RUF to OS.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-06-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-10-01-16 by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution#673-99 proposing to
rezone certain property located on the west side of Farmington Road north of
Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No. 3 site and the adjacent residential
parcel to the south) in the S.E.1/4 of Section 4 from PL and RUF to OS be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there a motion regarding the item. Approving or denying?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-07-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
23, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-10-01-16 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution
673-99 proposing to rezone certain property located on the west side of
Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No. 3 site
and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4 from
PL and RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 99-10-01-16 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office uses in
the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
17417
3) That the location of the proposed zoning district is consistent with the
Planning Commission's adopted goals and policies for office development;
and
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a transitional use
between the commercial uses to the south and the multiple family residential
to the north and would provide for a buffer between a heavily traveled major
thoroughfare to the east and single family residential uses to the west.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 99-08-06-03 City Planning Commission (Political
Signs/Non-Conforming Signs)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-08-06-03 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to C.R. #498-99and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and Section 18.50K of the
r.. Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and changes to the face
of any valid nonconforming sign.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-08-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-08-06-03 by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to C.R. #498-99 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 18.50D and Section 18.50K of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to political signs and changes to the face of any valid nonconforming
sign be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is
there any further discussion? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-09-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
23, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-08-06-03 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#498-99 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and Section
18.50K of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and
changes to the face of any valid conforming sign, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-08-06-03 be
approved for the following reasons:
17418
1) That the proposed language amendments will accomplish changes to the
.,., sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that will remove unjustified
restrictions pertaining to political signs and changes to the face of any valid
nonconforming sign;
2) That the proposed language amendments will provide for the adequate
regulation of political signs while, at the same time, providing protection of
First Amendment rights of free speech; and
3) That the proposed language amendment is recommended by the Inspection
Department and the Law Department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #8 PETITION 99-11-8-28 Millennium Park, L.L.C.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-08-28 by
Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
`or On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#01-10-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-11-08-28 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property
located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is
there any further discussion regarding this item? Hearing none, is there
anything additional, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: No there is not.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional from the petitioner that has changed from the last
time that they would like to put forth to the Planning Commission?
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a question for our Director. We have a new elevation plan. What was
the date on that? According to this information it was December 7, but that has
been changed, hasn't it?
Mr. Taormina: If we could have a reference to the revision date, Mr. Drane, I think that is was
Now the Commission is requesting.
17419
Mr. Drane, Rogvoy Associates, 6735 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills. It should be in there. I
changed it.
440.
Mr. McCann: I think December 7 is the new plan.
Mrs. Koons: It is December 29, number 5, the elevation plan.
Mark Drane: December 29 is the date.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Drane, are you still unaware, in regards to the 14,000 sq. ft. building, how
many tenants you are going have in there?
Mr. Drane: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: What could the maximum amount be that you would be putting in there?
Mr. Drane: Based on the width and depth ratio and a 2,000 sq. ft. tenant, we could only get
eight tenants in there.
Mr. Alanskas: So you could put eight in there? O.K. Thank you.
Marvin Walkon, 30445 Northwestern Hwy., Farmington Hills, MI. I want to explain why we
need this building and why we need this number of tenants. A year ago, 15
�.. months ago, when we came here we had a 200 acre site. We didn't have any
idea who was going on this site. We didn't have Meijer's. We didn't have the
stores that have been mentioned tonight. In the next four or five weeks, we will
be making announcements as to industrial users and hopefully, knock on wood,
we are going to be announcing two tenants that are going to take a million
square feet. Each of the tenants, hopefully, and I emphasize hopefully because
the leases aren't signed, will have 1100 employees. The other will have 800 or
900 employees. That is a little less than half of the industrial. If you keep going
at that rate, you could have 4,000 employees. The purpose of this building is
not to get anyone from Plymouth Road. We want Plymouth Road to prosper.
That is not the purpose. Anyone that would come from Plymouth and
Farmington to this site for a loaf of bread would probably need some psychiatric
help. It is a big, enormous attendant traffic, there is no reason. There is going
to be a new center on Plymouth and Farmington. It is going to have 15 or 20
tenants. That is where you are going to shop. You are not going to come to this
enormous, monstrosity site to get a loaf of bread or a cup of coffee. It just
doesn't make sense. The purpose of this is, when we are talking to these
tenants, they want for their employees to have somewhere to buy a cup of
coffee. They want somewhere that they can get a lunch for $5.00 or $6.00.
There are some that will be come that will go to Fonte D'Amore and spend
$12.00 or $14.00 for lunch but there will be many that won't spend that much
because they are not able to spend that much. They are going to want to stay on
site. People are going to have breaks. People are going to go out and have a
cup of coffee. You don't have time to go to the hamburger store on Plymouth
Road. That is the sole purpose. We're not going to get one quarter of one
percent other than people that are going to Home Depot or people that are going
17420
to Meijer's and employees. You are not going to get any people that are going
to come from a distance. It just doesn't make sense. Basically, when we talked
.,,.., to these perspective tenants we try to put a package together and try to get them
to come to this site. They can go anywhere in the country. When you see the
names of these tenants, these are enormous tenants. We want them here. We
want the benefits they bring to the south end of Livonia. Part of our sales to
these people, besides the issue of rent and that type of issue, we say listen, this
is what we are going to do to make it more comfortable for you. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Walkon, I agree with you but on the site plan that you showed us, you are
showing four or five exterior doors in the back of the building- not ten. And
you showed us at our study meeting, signs for four or five buildings, but now
you are saying you may put ten in there. That would change the entire complex
of the building. You would have to change the doors, you would need
entrances, which it does not show on the site plan. So you are asking us to
approve an "if come thing." If you can, help me see what it is you actually are
trying to do.
Mr. Walkon: As a practical matter, I know what Mr. Drane said; you couldn't put more than 7
or 8 tenants in that building. Let's assume there is a coney island in there or a
sandwich shop. If they take 2500 or 3000 sq. ft., the other tenants are 2,000 sq.
ft. so I don't see that as more than an eight tenant building.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
„',
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, what you are telling us is that you want this building strictly for
food service. Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Walkon: No. I am telling you that we want it for the employees. It may not be just
food. It may be other things that will service the employees. We don't have any
tenants, so it is difficult for me to say.
Mr. McCann: Theoretically, any store that you go to, and that is what I am trying to get at, it is
one thing to say we are going to have a coffee shop, we're going to have a pita
store, we're going to have a coney island and that is 4,000 sq. ft. of it there. I
have had clients that are in this business and I know that some of the stores will
go 1,200 sq. ft. That may be 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. of this. Are you going to
have four other dress stores and boutique stores and compete with everybody
that you told us a year ago that you weren't going to complete with? That is
what I am saying. If you could say that I've got 4,000 sq. ft. that I am going to
put three shops in for food service only and I am going to put another 12,000
tenant on the other side but you don't seem to be able to, or Mark has never been
able to give us any kind of idea of what he wants or what he could limit it to.
He has kind of hand cuffed us.
Mr. Walkon: We can absolutely live with a cap of 8 tenants. I don't want to say food tenants
'Ili/ because it could be a video store and that video store would be for the people
that work there. It would be extremely unlikely that someone would come
17421
from, let's say Blockbuster Video, they are not a tenant there, in this mall. They
would go to the strip centers.
Mr. McCann; Blockbuster takes 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft.?
Mr. Walkon: About 4,500 sq. ft. That is correct. It could be a barber shop.
Mr. McCann: I know, but then you are going against the small businesses that people have by
their home. That is what we are trying to clarify. If it is a place for someone to
go to lunch while they are in the mall, and if employees only have a half hour
and they walk across the street to get a pita or a coney island, that is servicing
your center. When you start going into, it could be a T.V. repair shop but you
are saying we are making it more convenient. You could say that about every
store you are going to put in there, that you are doing it for convenience sake
but it is not a necessity of working in the mall.
Mr. Walkon: That is correct. For example, a barber shop is not a necessity but it would be
convenient if you are an employee there to get a hair cut.
Mr. Alanskas: I am not trying to argue with you but if you could refresh my memory. At one
of our meetings, either a public hearing or when we gave you an approving
resolution to the Council, I recall that Robert Schostak came before us and said
he was for this proposal as long as we do not have small buildings of 3,000 or
4,000 sq. ft. which would be detrimental to the mall. At that time it was said
r that you would not have nothing less than, and I could be wrong, at the least
8,000 sq. ft. buildings for any business, except restaurants. You were going to
put on those three pads three large restaurants and now you are talking
Starbucks and coney islands. Now it is entirely different and if I am wrong,
you can correct me.
Mr. Walkon: Mr. Schostak referred only to the number of tenants between the two big boxes.
I sat next to him when he said that. We said that we would cap that at five.
That is the only discussion of the number of tenants we've had with Mr.
Schostak.
Mr. Alanskas: That is 140,000 sq. ft. that you are referring to?
Mr. Walkon: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I've got the minutes from the July 14th meeting in which you made the
statement that: "we're not going to have any small tenants. There is not going
to be any 5,000 or 10,000 spaces for small stores, like a gym shoe store or T-
shirt store or woman's apparel store and all kinds of small stores. We're not
going to have those." Let me address Plymouth Road for a second. I think this
is going to be the biggest boom ever for Plymouth Road since sliced bread". I
think those 4,000 folks," and I assume you are talking about the people that will
be working there, "they are going to go to Plymouth Road and grab a
hamburger. They are going to drop off their cleaning and get flowers." Now
you are telling me Plymouth Road is not going to get any people from them
17422
going to lunch. You may have a flower shop in there. You may have a cleaners
in there. You are doing exactly what you told us you weren't going to do to hurt
Plymouth Road and that is where I am hanging my hat. I am holding you to
what you said. You said you weren't going to have any small stores. I think
that is reasonable. You said it and I think you should stick to what you told us.
Mr. Walkon: May I reply?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Mr. Walkon: First of all, I want to address the issue of Mr. Schostak. We talked about those
five stores. I think we all agree on that but initially, we didn't think we needed
small stores there. In fact, when we were talking to the prospective tenants, we
want them and I think you want them to be here. This was a selling point. Let
me give you an example. You recently approved, on Plymouth and Farmington
60,000 feet of small tenant space. The drug store takes 15,000 sq. ft. You have
45,000 sq. ft. on Plymouth and Farmington which may well be 20 stores. They
will have more stores at that strip center than we will have at Millennium Park.
I think that that is a comparison that one is a 12 acre site and the other is a 200
acre site. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi , seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved it was
#01-11-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-11-08-28 by Millennium Park, L.L.C.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on
property located at 13500 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet SPA-1 dated November 8, 1999, prepared
by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan marked Sheet SPA-2 dated 11/08/99 prepared by
DesignTeam, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet SPA-5 dated
December 29, 1999, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
17423
6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exceptions;
7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure
gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times;
8) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated
November 9, 1999:
that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed
according to the current Boca Codes
9) That the 16,400 sq. ft. building shall be restricted to two (2) tenants; and
10) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Koons: I will be voting against this motion because I think 8 tenants may be too many,
but I think two at this point is too restrictive. We have pushed for diversity in
`,.. the look of the development. I don't want us to be tying hands if we are
providing diversity in the service in this type of development and I do think a
lot people do use their lunch hours to run errands as effectively as they can. I
don't know that a half hour or 45 minute lunch hour could allow someone to
go to Plymouth Road to a flower shop, to a card shop or to a barber shop. I
think 8 is too many but I think 2 at this point is too restrictive. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: For the record, it is my understanding that this site plan meets all the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and that, at least in my opinion, the
architecture is compatible to and in harmony with the other buildings that are
existing or proposed and with respect to restaurants. The restaurants that
would be in there would not be automatically permitted. They would require
waiver use so the City would have control over which restaurants would go in
and their size and the kind that they are and so forth, and therefore I have no
problem with this petition. However, I am disappointed with the two tenant
restriction because it is counter productive and it is unnecessary. It has
dubious value however, because it is a good petition, it is consistent with the
overall scheme of Millennium Park and I would like to see it go ahead. So I
will vote for the petition.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to say the same thing. I hate to restrict this. I know what Mr.
Walkon is trying to do because there is going to be thousands and thousands of
oft. people there. But you know, Home Depot wherever you go you can get food
there before you exit the building. They have hot dogs, coffee, so on and so
forth. When you go into Meijer's they have food for customers. I just cannot
17424
see restricting it to two. I think four would be more feasible. I cannot approve
two tenants. I think that is not giving them enough. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I have looked at this. I have tried to come up with a reasonable solution. We
have a master plan of this development. We have spent considerable time. We
had meetings with the Council. We had meetings with the developers. We've
had meetings with residents. We took a look at this and there was a master
plan. We understand that you can't carry out every aspect of a master plan
throughout the project but we can try to keep the intent there. As Mr. LaPine
read the minutes, there was a reason why we were trying to keep large tenants
there. There are needs for changes occasionally but to say we need to change
this but we can't give you a limit of, let's say four, or 4,000 sq. ft. towards food
services, which appears to be the major need. It appears to me that we are
going to end up with a site that can go from tenant to tenant to tenant and
compete with what the people on Plymouth Road which were afraid of and that
was you are going to drive all the business away from Plymouth Road. They
won't go past the Millennium project. I did have discussions with Mr.
Schostak regarding this. He called me at that time and said it was his concern
that the tenants should not be less than 15,000 sq. ft. and that he was going to
support this because he was promised that there would not be direct
competition from the smaller tenants. It's not that I think that is what you are
trying to do, but that is what it is going to end up because as soon as you've got
a vacant store and you've got a 3,000 sq. ft. woman's dress shop that wants to
come in and they are the first one in line and willing to pay the dollar, that is
�.. what is going to end up there. I am going to move this forward to City Council
with a recommendation for two tenants as well.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. I obviously am going to vote
for this motion and the reason for it is really that I agree with you on the higher
number. Splitting this building into two tenants is really not a significant
deviation from the spirit of the dialogue that was established in December 1998
regarding the total number of tenant operations within the Millennium. I refer
to pages 16543 and 16544 of those minutes and I would like to cover just two
things in regard to those minutes. I presented this statement: "One of my
major concerns is that the initiation of this program was that the ultimate
magnitude of this project and it's impact on the rest of the City businesses.
Although I don't think that issue has been totally addressed by an independent
study, the appearance of this layout here, do I assume the maximum number of
tenants in this 67 acres would be 13?" Mr. Drane answered: "Yes. The five
out lots, Home Depot, Meijers, Borders and the five-tenant building." Meijer's
was in your original plan, Mr. Walkon. After that Mr. Goldberg commented, I
won't read his entire deal but he said if Border's does not go forward as planned
then that building could have two tenants. In final, Mr. Goldberg said we have
no intention to have a bunch of small tenants. I was under the impression
when they made that motion that we were more or less locked in into 13 - 14
plats. That's why I was willing to make this a two tenant building because it
was in the spirit there because Border's hopefully will be there and that will be
the fourteenth. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
17425
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, Koons
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #9 Approval of Minutes of 797`h Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes of
the 797th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on December 14, 1999.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#01-12-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 797`h Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 1999, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, LaPine, Hale, Koons, Shane, McCann
N`" NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 798th Regular Meeting held on
January 11, 2000, was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
//7.,./72
Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST: I, .._, ; ;` w .
James C. McCann, Chairman